Team Obama: Hillary’s making her 2008 mistakes all over again

posted at 10:01 am on February 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

If these comments about the nascent Hillary Clinton campaign had come from unnamed sources within the Obama White House, one might be tempted to write them off as snark, intranecine jealousies, or long memories and bruised feelings from six years ago. However, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith gets key Obama campaign players to go on record for their public warnings about the direction they see Team Hillary taking, which makes this sound more like … intranecine fighting, to be honest:

Top advisers and former aides to Barack Obama say Hillary Clinton is repeating the mistakes she made in 2008, building a machine in lieu of a message and lumbering toward the Democratic nomination with the same deep vulnerabilities that cost her the nomination eight years earlier.

The former secretary of state has offered her tacit blessing to a series of Democratic organizations, including a draft group, Ready for Hillary, which was recently taken over by a former Clinton aide; and Priorities USA Action, the Obama super PAC repositioning itself to raise huge sums for Clinton. The moves have been effective in telegraphing to other would-be candidates that they may have a hard time raising money and building an organization, and in establishing the sense of inevitability that was central to her 2008 campaign — a perception that also backfired badly.

“I just don’t see any strategic value in stories positioning her as inevitable or the pre-emptive nominee, and I don’t think people who are out there talking about this help her, and I think she should make that clear,” said Joel Benenson, Obama’s chief campaign pollster and now the top White House pollster. “She doesn’t need this. If she decides to run for president, everybody knows she’s going to be able to raise money, everybody knows she’s going to be extremely formidable, that she’s going to have a significant network of supporters around the country — so what’s the value of all this in 2014?”

Say, isn’t this the same team that raised hundreds of millions of dollars in two election cycles? And when did they start doing that in the second election? IIRC, it was about ten seconds after Obama took the inaugural oath the first time. Well, okay, it wasn’t that quickly, but it was well before Republicans started primary campaigns in 2011, nearly two years before a President who would face no primary challengers would have to stand for re-election.

What was the message in that re-election effort? The first election’s message was “hope and change,” but I’d bet most people wouldn’t remember the second-term message without Googling it. (“Forward.” With the period, eventually.)

We’ll get back to messaging in a moment. Ben LaBolt has a more rational concern about the early launch:

“The further out front the effort to elect Sec. Clinton is three years before election day, the greater the incentive is for the press, prospective opponents, and adversarial groups to scrutinize and attack her every move,” said Ben LaBolt, the national press secretary for the 2012 Obama campaign. “Even if it is a well-known candidate — sometimes more so — activists, donors, and voters like to see candidates fighting for every vote. If they start to feel like their power and influence is diminished it could have unforeseen consequences — we learned that lesson the hard way during the New Hampshire primary in 2008.[“]

The willingness of Benenson and others to speak openly about their concerns reflects a growing consensus among Democrats that Clinton may be taking a wrong turn, something that has been much the conversation among the people — notably, advisers to Obama and to former Sen. John Edwards — who beat her seven years ago.

That’s not a bad point at all, but what’s the alternative? Everyone knows that the Clintons have been itching to return to the White House ever since the moment they left it. The early entry makes her a bigger target, but more importantly, it may keep other Democrats out of the race — although they’d have to have very short memories, given how Clinton screwed up what should have been a cakewalk in 2008. There is another worry too, one left unspoken by critics in this piece: fundraising now may drain efforts by Democrats to keep control of the Senate. I’d bet that this is driving a lot of the concern about the early launch of these “independent” groups.

Let’s get back to messaging. The message here will be what it was in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2012 — a chance to make history, this time by electing the first female US president. In fact, that’s all Hillary has. She has no track record of significant accomplishment in her eight years as a US Senator, and nothing at all to recommend her from her four years as Secretary of State. Even a Clinton ally like Lanny Davis couldn’t come up with a single data point in a tenure bookended by the “reset button” embarrassment and the debacle in Benghazi. Despite her outsize power in the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is simply a weak candidate and a mediocre-at-best campaigner — and that’s why Democrats should be hitting the panic button.

What messed Clinton up in 2008 was not taking “Caucus” primary states seriously and building support in those states. As long as she takes them seriously along with the big “heavy advertising” states she will have a cake-walk.

I don’t see the black precincts going to too much trouble re voter fraud for her. Try as they might, the press will have a hard time spinning any likeability into HRC. They dare not show any Hillary rallies with that negative shrew screeching about inequality or some crap.

In fact, that’s all Hillary has. She has no track record of significant accomplishment in her eight years as a US Senator, and nothing at all to recommend her from her four years as Secretary of State. Even a Clinton ally like Lanny Davis couldn’t come up with a single data point in a tenure bookended by the “reset button” embarrassment and the debacle in Benghazi. Despite her outsize power in the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is simply a weak candidate and a mediocre-at-best campaigner — and that’s why Democrats should be hitting the panic button.

If there is any opponent, D or R, this comment should be blasted everywhere, 24/7/365 until November 2016. This hag is a nothingburger, no accomplishments, nothing to hold up as a success. All she has is murky credentials, past and present suspicions, and a strong contempt for the people. She’s a perfect communist party member.

There is another worry too, one left unspoken by critics in this piece: fundraising now may drain efforts by Democrats to keep control of the Senate.

For Hillary that would be a feature, not a bug.

Triangulation is what the Clinton team does best. When your agenda is already the law, and you just want to be the Big Kahuna reigning over the peons, and you can continue changing society through the federal bureaucracy rather than the legislature, the opposition controlling the neutered Congress is a blessing.

Everyone knows that the Clintons have been itching to return to the White House ever since the moment they left it.

Yeah, I remember Bill Clinton skulking around the smoldering ruins of the WTC on 9/13/01 (a day ahead of the President) lamenting the fact that he wasn’t in the Oval Office when the terrorists he created killed three thousand human beings in the name of Allah.

Killary’s big problem is that she’s running as if she doesn’t have to account for her do nothing (positive) tenure as Secretary of State. Bring up something like Benghazi and she gets haughty and acts as if the issue has been thoroughly investigated and she has no reason to discuss it further. You can get away with that when you’re the outgoing SecState and recovering from “exhaustion.” Not so much when you want the top job.

Let’s get back to messaging. The message here will be what it was in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2012 — a chance to make history, this time by electing the first female US president. In fact, that’s all Hillary has.

Doesn’t this make a Hillary campaign self-defeating?

Are women going to vote for a woman whose only qualification is that she married well and stuck with the cad through dozens of affairs?

Top advisers and former aides to Barack Obama say Hillary Clinton is repeating the mistakes she made in 2008, building a machine in lieu of a message and lumbering toward the Democratic nomination with the same deep vulnerabilities that cost her the nomination eight years earlier.
=====================================================================

Obama was able to derail Hillary Clinton because he was black and the “first black president” narrative countered the “first female president” narrative. Even with Obama out of the picture, John Edwards would have had no chance beating Clinton in 2008. If there isnt a prominent hispanic running – and I cant think of one – a white guy wont beat Clinton in 2016.

It’s the Clinton machine not the democratic machine that has the high hopes for the nomination.
mixplix on February 4, 2014 at 10:31 AM

I agree with this. Her pals are all telegraphing her thinking on the 2016 election. Carville has been increasingly critical of Obama and the Obamacare rollout. Rendell was just on Hannity and was critical of Obamacare. I forget what else he said that caught my attention as preparing the field, but it was apparent.

I think Hillary’s ultimate mistake may be that she is too calculating. She will come off as inauthentic because of this.

The funny thing is going to be how SURPRISED you guys are when Hill gets taken out by the left wing crazy candidate in 2016. A repeat of 2008. Because, the left wing crazy Pete Seeger crowd run the Democrats.

Even though, you are being told now that is exactly what is going to happen. You are still going to be SURPRISED.

Obama was able to derail Hillary Clinton because he was black and the “first black president” narrative countered the “first female president” narrative.

Valkyriepundit on February 4, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I’m of the opinion that the Clintons helped Obama get his prime time speaking slot at the 2004 DNC when he was running for U.S. Senator, and the Clintons’ original game plan was to have Obama be Hillary’s VP… the first woman President and the first black Vice President… with Obama in line to take over after Hillary served 8 years…

I think the Clintons were caught completely off-guard by Obama’s “coup” as he took the nomination away from her.

I think there has been an ongoing Democrat civil war between the Obama camp and the Clinton Camp continuously since 2008.

Yes, Bill helped Obama get re-elected, but that was in Hillary’s own self-interest, so that she would not have to face an incumbant Romney in 2016.

Seriously, the Dems are in a quandry. They don’t know just who they should run. Killary can fill the female/lesbian criteria but is that enough. I’m guessing that they are searching for a trangender/hispanic/illegal alien/female just to cover all the big bases. And I’m sure that even now Elizabeth Warren is calling herself black because “that was what she always was told” and she has a large caboose.

Look. The press conned many into believing obama was, and is ‘likeable’. I never saw it. You never saw it. But many did (and still do). There’s not one thing about her, from her screeching to her cackling that’s remotely endearing to anyone. Even to those who screech and cackle.

I’m of the opinion that the Clintons helped Obama get his prime time speaking slot at the 2004 DNC when he was running for U.S. Senator, and the Clintons’ original game plan was to have Obama be Hillary’s VP… the first woman President and the first black Vice President… with Obama in line to take over after Hillary served 8 years…

I think the Clintons were caught completely off-guard by Obama’s “coup” as he took the nomination away from her.

ITguy on February 4, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Well, according to “Game Change” the Clintons were already cross with Obama when he declared his 2008 run for potus. And seriously: can you imagine Obama agreeing to anything that doesnt put him in the drivers seat? He also publicly criticized Clintonism very early on for being too accommodating to Republican ideas.

I don’t see the black precincts going to too much trouble re voter fraud for her. Try as they might, the press will have a hard time spinning any likeability into HRC. They dare not show any Hillary rallies with that negative shrew screeching about inequality or some crap.

Lanceman on February 4, 2014 at 10:17 AM

All that needs to be shown is her twerking in Africa. That and the bloody handprints on the wall in Benghazi.

I think Hillary’s ultimate mistake may be that she is too calculating. She will come off as inauthentic because of this.

h a p f a t on February 4, 2014 at 10:44 AM

I think behind that appearance of calculating is a bobbing Hillary head that is empty of most of what the public assumes is up there. She’s a heavy drinker, has been her entire life, she’s accomplished little to nothing except sticking-in with a Big Celebrity and waving gleefully at nonexistent greetings from crowds (that “oh, hai, hai, so glad to see ya” wave from the stage when she’s actually “responding” to no one), and she’s suffered some sort of neurological impairment recently, at least the one we know about.

Dang right. Hill didn’t lose 2008 because of “mistakes”. She lost because the left abandoned her when a candidate came along with even bigger identity-politics shininess than her. It was all about having a “historic” candidate, and Obummer’s half-blackness was more historic to them than Hill’s womanliness.

Let’s get back to messaging. The message here will be what it was in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2012 — a chance to make history, this time by electing the first female US president. In fact, that’s all Hillary has.

If Hillary is going to run on the message that it’s time for the ‘first woman President’, she’s going to be in trouble if Elizabeth Warren changes her mind – as then we can check off two boxes, the first woman President and the first Native American President….

Hillary has always been a much stronger candidate on paper than in practice. She is strong with the Emily’s List feminists and the Wall Street bankers who appreciate the Clintonian tradition of being for sale, but has little appeal to young or independent voters. Blacks deserted her the second Obama began to appear viable.

Bill Clinton was personally charming and smart enough poltically to avoid ideological straitjackets, and he still only won with pluralities and the two strongest third-party performances since 1912 by Ross Perot. Hillary has none of the charm and is known to be a lifelong diehard leftist.

The Clinton Machine was still strong enough to muscle her into the Senate from deep blue New York, but it could not carry her to the national nomination against a completely unqualified and inexperienced Obama.

If by “Elizabeth” you are referring to Granny from Massachusetts, she’s only a year younger than Hillary is.

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM

You ain’t gotta convince me. libdie is the one who stated she was the future of the ‘rat party.

Lanceman on February 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM

libdie also told us Sunday night that Rush Limbaugh hates it when a black QB wins the Super Bowl-despite the fact that the only other black QB to win the SB did it before Rush’s show even came on the air!

The dims aren’t interested in “Hillary,” they’re not interested in Mrs. Clinton, they’re not even interested in Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. They’re interested in Mr. Clinton and want him back–in any possible manifestation.

Elizabeth Warren. Tracking the emotional state of mind of the Left and their control over the democrat party, this seems fairly easy to predict.

rrpjr on February 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

I am inclined to agree she’s the one on whom they are probably hanging their hopes of stopping Clinton. They loathe Hillary for her actually pretending to give a damn about America’s interests abroad, but they’d still rather have her than any white male.

Elizabeth Warren. Tracking the emotional state of mind of the Left and their control over the democrat party, this seems fairly easy to predict.

rrpjr on February 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM

I am inclined to agree she’s the one on whom they are probably hanging their hopes of stopping Clinton. They loathe Hillary for her actually pretending to give a damn about America’s interests abroad, but they’d still rather have her than any white male.

fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Besides being only 1 year younger than Hillary, Granny has a major problem-she’s even farther to the Left than O’bama is. She did well in MA, but that state is as Left as they come, and she was also helped greatly by the MA Democrats’ GOTV efforts, while the MA Republicans totally tanked in their own GOTV for Scott Brown.

Granny may play well in MA and NY and CA, but she won’t play well in more “moderate” Blue States.

HRC is unqualified for the Presidency in that she was ‘too fatigued’ to go on the Sunday 5 immediately after 9/11/2012. Sending Susan Rice prevented HRC from going under the bus, BUT it made clear that she herself could not take the hit. Either didn’t want to get besmirched with her own incompetence, or actually was unable to handle the pressure. Either way, I don’t care.
She could not handle the pressure.
Whether ‘it makes a difference’ is to be discovered. It will be hard for her to escape the phrase along with all her other Alinsky-ite comments. She belongs behind bars for her AR chicanery and dirty tricks in the WH. {White Water, Cattle futures success rate, and Travelgate} She’s a crook. And not very good at hiding it.

libdie also told us Sunday night that Rush Limbaugh hates it when a black QB wins the Super Bowl-despite the fact that the only other black QB to win the SB did it before Rush’s show even came on the air!

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 1:07 PM

See, that dumbass loves to play the victim. Rush correctly pointed out that a bunch of white liberals were ‘desirous’ come hell or high water, achievement, intelligence anything else be damned, that a ‘black quarterback do well’.

That liberal guilt pervades even white ‘conservatives’ (David Brooks) to varying degrees. Without one shed of empirical evoidence, Brooks declares that by the pants crease alone obama was gonna be president. And a good one.

Pants crease? Really? Blacks are so far behind whites that we must dumb down the presidency to what a haberdasher did? Brooks acted like obama barely had the skills to operate an iron.